Halliday Case Study

They Supreme Court found that alternative 1 and 2 were unacceptable. Alternative 1 did not apply at all to street encounters and that people on the street are then subject to what and who ever any officer felt like. Alternative 2 was not in the best interest of the officer and if the officer could not take any action until they had probable cause their crime control would suffer and they may never see the suspects again.

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

Through the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), police have certain powers to help them do their jobs and enforce the law. But these powers that police have been granted also have limits to help protect the rights of the victim, the suspect and the society “particularly when these powers affect the civil liberties of members in the community whom the police serve” as stated by the former Attorney-General Robert Debus.

Police have the power to investigate crimes, make arrests, interrogate suspects and gather evidence against the accused. Using their powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (2002) (NSW), police arrested Jessica Silva on the day she committed the offence, 13 May 2012 as they had reasonable grounds to suspect she committed the murder. She was shortly charged with the murder of James Polkinghorne. Police then conducted an interrogation which was recorded in an ERISP of an interview with the accused. The offence was most likely reported on the day by the accused or an eyewitness and Silva was immediately taken into custody. This report most likely came from calling the police on the emergency 000 number. The police also used their powers to investigate the crime in order to be sufficient enough to present a case against the accused in court. The gathering of evidence in this case involved the taking of eye witness statements, statements from those involved including Silva, her brother and her father, and taking photos of the crime scene. It is important that this evidence is obtained carefully and not tampered with, otherwise it would be inadmissible. The police have used technology in investigating the crime through the phone tapping of Polkinghorne’s phone, and the seizing of the SMS messages sent between Silva and Polkinghorne prior to the murder. The phone taps were admissible as they were obtained legally with a warrant, despite being for the investigation of a separate offence. The police were allowed to arrest and detain Silva on the 13 May 2012 because they had reasonable grounds that she committed the illegal offence. The police must issue her a caution, stating why they have arrested her and that if she were to say something it could be used in court against her. The interrogation or asking of questions was

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

If the police officer precedes to search the resident’s house without obtaining a search warrant the evidence obtained can be deemed illegal under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. “Under this rule, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, evidence that has been seized illegally is considered “tainted” and cannot be used against a suspect.” [6] The Exclusionary Rule could also be used as cited in the Mapp v. Ohio case. Anything obtained illegally could be deemed tainted or inadmissible in court. It is imperative that the police officers follow all procedures faithfully and as per the tenets that the courts have set up. Any mistakes can, and regularly do, permit a liable party to go free on a technicality.

Also, they challenged it under Section 7 under The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which states the rights for life, liberty and personal security. The Crown argued that it wasn’t trafficking a narcotic substance and that it was actually manslaughter. Since, the appellant negligently gave the victim the narcotics, which ultimately killed her.

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

§ 75.007. TRESPASSERS. (a) In this section, "trespasser" means a person who enters the land of another without any legal right, express or implied.

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The action of trespass vi et armis instituted by the Circuit Court of the district of Missouri.

My reasons are because the arrest of a stalker at the Forest Park Apartment Complex is taken by the authority. According to chapter two, jurisdiction over persons or property it summarizes that people have the right to their property if anyone who trans passes it and were not allowed by the owner they can face serious consequences. (Cross & Miller, 2012). For Instance, the stalker will be put into jail and eventually will have a court meeting. Once this issue is addressed by the judge, the person that was arrested will be released, or charged for this illegal

Analysis: There was much controversy with this case because police officers did enter an apartment with no warrant. Since there were no bystanders or other evidence except the police officers and the tenants involved it was very difficult to come out with a verdict. Of course the police officers stated that there were exigent circumstances occurring before they enter the apartment and the tenants states that there were no exigent

Under Section 30 of PACE 1984 whilst the suspect is in the police car they must be taken to the station straight away; instead the officers stopped for ten minutes at a shop to see how another investigation was going on which is unlawful to do so.

[R] The first is a trespasser. A trespasser is one who enters the land of another without the consent of the owner. The only duty a landowner owes a trespasser is to not willfully or wantonly injure the trespasser. Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 303 Mich.App. 1,4, 840 N.W.2d 401, 404 (2013). [R] The second status is a licensee. A licensee is a person, such as a social guest, that has the landowner’s permission to enter the land. Id. at 4, 840 N.W.2d at 404.The duty a landowner has to a licensee is to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers that the landowner is aware or should have awareness of, if the danger is not open or obvious. Id. at 5, 840 N.W. 2d at 404. “Social guests are licensees who assume the ordinary risks associated with their visit.” Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 592, 614 N.W.2d 88,91-92 (2000). [R]The last status of those entering the property of another is a business invitee. Because of the business context, the landowner has an additional duty that extends beyond that of the duty to a licensee. The landowner has an obligation to inspect the premises as to any dangers and, if